Perceived risk and distress related to COVID-19 in healthcare versus non-healthcare workers of Pakistan: a cross-sectional study

  1. Adeel Abid
  2. Hania Shahzad
  3. Hyder Ali Khan
  4. Suneel Piryani
  5. Areeba Raza Khan
  6. Fauziah Rabbani

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have found themselves and their families more susceptible to contracting COVID-19. This puts them at a higher risk of psychological distress, which may compromise patient care. In this study, we aim to explore the risk perceptions and psychological distress between HCWs and non-healthcare workers (NHCWs) in Pakistan.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online self-administered questionnaire. Psychological distress was assessed through The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Comparisons were made between HCWs (front/backend, students/graduates) and NHCWs related to risk perceptions and stress levels related to COVID-19. Following tests for normality (Shapiro–Wilk test), variables that fulfilled the normality assumption were compared using the independent samples t -test, while for other variables Mann–Whitney U -test was employed. Pearson Chi-square test was used to compare categorical data. Multiple logistic regression techniques examined the association of participant age, gender, household income, and the presence of COVID-19 symptoms with depression and anxiety levels.

Results

Data from 1406 respondents (507 HCWs and 899 NHCWs) were analyzed. No significant difference was observed between HCWs and NHCWs’ perception of susceptibility and severity towards COVID-19. While healthcare graduates perceived themselves (80% graduates vs 66% students, p -value 0.011) and their family (82% graduates vs 67% students, p -value 0.008) to be more susceptible to COVID-19, they were less likely to experience depression than students. Frontline HCWs involved in direct patient care perceived themselves (83% frontline vs. 70% backend, p -value 0.003) and their family (84% frontline vs. 72% backend, p -value 0.006) as more susceptible to COVID-19 than backend healthcare professionals. Over half of the respondents were anxious (54% HCWs and 55% NHCWs). Female gender, younger age, lower income, and having COVID-19 related symptoms had a significant effect on the anxiety levels of both HCWs and NHCWs.

Conclusion

Frontline HCWs, young people, women, and individuals with lower income were at a higher risk of psychological distress due to the pandemic. Government policies should thus be directed at ensuring the mental well-being of frontline HCWs and improving their satisfaction to strengthen the health care delivery system. The findings suggest the need to provide mental health support for health workers.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1186/s12960-022-00705-4
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.23.20218297: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIACUC: Ethical Consideration: Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Review Committee (ERC) of the Aga Khan University, Pakistan.
    Consent: Participants were asked to present their consent at the beginning of the survey and were free to withdraw at any stage.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data Analysis: Data collected from respondents was directly stored in Google Spreadsheets and later imported to Microsoft Excel and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 21 (IBM Corp).
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)
    Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)
    Data was cleaned, coded, and analyzed using SPSS.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.23.20218297 on medRxiv